Quoting Simon Walter (si...@gikaku.com): > What I don't like is tight coupling.
I'm with you on that. This is why I see the problem as being pretty much the entire Freedesktop.org 'stack', e.g., upower, udisks2, D-Bus, udev, and all the rest -- not just systemd. I see all of them as being problems, because they're all managed as CADT-style projects (unstable, forever being EOLed and rewritten from scratch, etc.), create problems for other codebases, and collectively form a hideous dependency hairball. > What I wanted to know about was why *Debian* decided to use it as > the primary init program. Honestly, the project did not decide. It happened by unplanned incrementalism driven by the GNOME systemd-logind madness. > In the above post, the author, 'dasein', mentions GR. Does this mean > General Resolution? Yes. > Further on in the thread 'dasein' says: > > "If we ignore the people who preferred the relatively neutral option > 2, we see from your own tally that 148 people preferred 'coupling is > fine', and 95 'coupling is unacceptable' - that seems to be about > the most direct way of measuring the size of the two poles to me, > though obviously it doesn't tell you whether they're voting on the > principle of maintainer autonomy, or on systemd specifically." > > Does this mean that there was a vote? Do you call that a simple majority? It was a complex alternative vote using the Condorcet voting algorithm, a variety of ranked-choice voting aka 'instant runoff voting'. The (IIRC) four choices on the voted ballot were, in turn, the result of some tactical dogfighting whereby the original question got amendments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
